If only the
president and fellow Democrats would speak as directly, plainly and effectively
as Cheney. Put it in prime time, keep it short, make it specific and easy to
understand (thereby spoon-feeding the press), make a legal case against Trump
(obstruction), and remind Americans (not to mention the media) of how important
this is. Indeed, there is nothing more important than this.
Opinion: Distinguished
pol of the week: What Democrats can learn from Liz Cheney
Columnist|
Today at 7:45 a.m. EST
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) has pulled off a pro-democracy messaging triumph, more effective than anything the White House or other Democrats have accomplished to date. During a House select committee hearing about the Jan. 6 insurrection, and again on the House floor, she provided vivid evidence of the plot to overthrow our democracy — breaking through the media lethargy and GOP noise. How did she do it?
For starters, she watched the clock. The hearing was in the evening, which, not coincidentally, provided a larger audience and avoided getting trampled by other news. Her message was broad — former president Donald Trump’s cronies are not above the law — but her evidence was specific and measured. She spoke for a relatively short period of time.
Second, her tone was matter of fact. She spoke more in sadness than in anger. (“We are here to address a very serious matter, contempt of Congress by a former chief of staff to a former president of the United States. We do not do this lightly. And, indeed, we had hoped not to take this step at all.”)
Third, she picked an event that was easy to understand (refusing to appear for testimony after turning over thousands of pages of evidence) to remind voters of Trump’s unprecedented betrayal. “On January 6, our Capitol building was attacked and invaded. The mob was summoned to Washington by President Trump,” she recalled. “And, as many of those involved have admitted — on videotape, in social media, and in federal district court — they were provoked to violence by President Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen.”
Fourth, she read several especially alarming texts — some from members of Congress — putting them on notice that they cannot hide from the inquiry and will be held accountable for their conduct. She also pulled back the curtain on Fox News, making clear that its cynical hosts knew full well Trump was responsible for a horrible event — though for months they’ve been playing defense for him. (Disclaimer: I am an MSNBC contributor.) It may have been the most effective takedown of a faux news organization acting as a propaganda mouthpiece.
Fifth, she tied Meadows to one of Trump’s central offenses: “[F]or 187 minutes, President Trump refused to act when action by our president was required, indeed essential, and compelled by his oath to our Constitution. Mr. Meadows received numerous text messages, which he has produced without any privilege claim — imploring that Mr. Trump take the specific action we all knew his duty required.” Everyone understands the concept of dereliction of duty, and putting it in minutes (rather than “for over three hours”) highlighted Trump’s mendacity in allowing the siege to continue.
Sixth, while Jeffrey Clark’s testimony was not at issue (he’s pleaded the Fifth Amendment), she did raise Trump’s attempt to strong-arm the Justice Department, in the process implicating another Republican congressman. “President Trump intended to appoint Jeffrey Clark as attorney general, in part so that Mr. Clark could alter the Department of Justice’s conclusions regarding the election,” Cheney said. “Mr. Clark has now informed the committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters and intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
Seventh, she laid out the potential crime (obstruction of justice), and made clear it involved events before Jan. 6. “Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes? Mark Meadows’s testimony will inform our legislative judgments.” “Corruptly seek to obstruct” is right from the federal code. She reminded us that the call to Georgia’s secretary of state was part of the plot to stop the electoral vote counting:
In Georgia, for instance,
Mr. Meadows participated in a phone call between President Trump and Georgia
Secretary of State [Brad] Raffensperger. Meadows was on the phone when
President Trump asked the Secretary of State to quote “find 11,780 votes” to
change the result of the presidential election in Georgia.
Eighth, she anticipated Republicans’ objection and then demolished it. (“He has not claimed, and does not have any privilege bases to refuse entirely to testify regarding these topics.”)
Finally, she elevated the importance of the House’s work and the seriousness of Trump’s betrayal, in the process making her sycophantic colleagues look craven and ridiculous in their continued fidelity to Trump. “January 6 was without precedent. There has been no stronger case in our nation’s history for a congressional investigation into the actions of a former president,” she began. What is at stake is nothing less than “our Constitution, the structure of our institutions and the rule of law — which are at the heart of what makes America great.” And she reminded the country of the reason for doing this. “We must get to the objective truth and ensure that January 6 never happens again.”
If only the president and fellow Democrats would speak as directly, plainly and effectively as Cheney. Put it in prime time, keep it short, make it specific and easy to understand (thereby spoon-feeding the press), make a legal case against Trump (obstruction), and remind Americans (not to mention the media) of how important this is. Indeed, there is nothing more important than this.
For
some brilliant public rhetoric, we can say, well done, Rep. Cheney.